Re: the case for machine-readable error fields

On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 10:06:37PM -0000, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
>
> > If that's what we're trying to solve, I don't think that adding
> > some kind of proprietary shorthand coding is a good idea. If
> > we're do to this at all, it should be a connection-based GUC
> > option, and use some standard formal like XML fragments.
>
> +1 to this idea in general, but *please* don't consider the use of
> XML. If we really need some sort of formatting, let's do CSV. Or
> YAML. Or JSON. Anything but XML.

+1 on the "anything but XML." XML reeks of inner platform effect.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner-platform_effect>

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate